>>22497454Nice, I'll add all that shortly, thanks!
>>22477985>>22478387Not sure if you ever grabbed this Anon, but I've moved it to its (hopefully) forever home in a Dynamic Pro mega; it can be found in the spreadsheet now.
>>22488570So I went ahead and comped: Beatrice-Raws, Moozzi2, RetroCrush (dub and sub encodes - both of these are nearly identical), the Discotek remux, RyomaGetter1, sdml's reencode of something or other, and the DVD encode @540487. Verdict?
#540487 looks like dogshit, naturally given its age. Fail.
sdml reencoded something or other and decided to completely degrain and lost a lot of detail. Fail.
Moozzi2's video looks about average for them...except when they say "Almost Non-Filter", it turns out they decided to try and partially degrain. - but whatever they used to degrain went ham on the video and absolutely destroyed it in random chunks which are noticeable even fully zoomed out. Hard Fail.
We're left with the Discotek remux which uses OC for some godawful reason, RyomaGetter1 which is based off the same source, RetroCrush which appears to use the same source, and the incomplete Beatrice, which I think uses a different source due to color differences in the video. Beatrice doesn't have the banding and other artifacting issues that affect the Discotek group, but does feature some weird line artifacting the others don't have, as well as the aforementioned color differences (which isn't strictly a problem). Beatrice also possibly did lose out on some detail by opting for 720p over 1080p, though maybe they judged it not worth it, I don't know.
Ultimately, I'd say RyomaGetter1/RetroCrush do a fine job of encoding the BD all things considered, and RyomaGetter1's smaller than RC so I'd go with that if I were you. Here's the screenshots:
https://mega.nz/file/FIVTXSDZ#Zm47OTVaVyY6obCi3r50PhJ1R9ypmANtYWqADDMDAg8